Not necessarily going to agree 100% but generally I agree. Political correctness is being used to handwave a lot of things through in the UK, things that aren't anything to do with being inoffensive but are due to fear.

Having said that I absolutely hate people on forums who use Carlin as a reason why no one should ever be upset about anything they say. Carlin believed in his right to say whatever he wanted in the name of comedy...but Carlin could also judge an audience. Carlin was a funny person and in the majority of cases people that emulate him aren't.

Mertruve:Dude, the point of Wikipedia is that everything has an external, credible source.

OT: is it wrong that I believe we have passed the effectiveness of being Politically Correct and the entire meaning of it has come back full circle to the point before people were trying to be PC?

I understand word can hurt people's feelings, but trust me, being labeled something that everyone else considers "being PC" makes me rage. I think its about time we moved passed trying to be PC, and actually just be Correct.

I'm taking a Chicano Studies class right now as an effort to connect with my Mexican American youths. You see, my parents raised me under an American identity as opposed to a Mexican-American identity; meaning that they focused on teaching me English first as opposed to teaching me Spanish. Upside was that I became the fine, upstanding geek citizen I am today as opposed to the walking, talking stereotype known as the "cholo". Downside: I get flack from one side that I'm not "Mexican" enough and I get flack from the other on why I get "butthurt" they start talking about how "Illegal Immigrants" (really Mexicans) are ruining the country.

I identify with whites more than I do with Mexicans by consequence, not by choice. My Dad and by extension his family have seen the worse of what happened to Mexican-Americans during the 60's and 70's and for the most part have become bitter about it to the point where their views are borderline WASP. Being in this special situation of identifying and being identified with both parties, I've taken it upon myself to call out white people when they're being racist or insensitive and calling out Mexicans for the same and acting like stereotypes. While I'm not a believer in "Political Correctness", I am a believer in common courtesy, and strongly believe that when either side throws slurs and then retaliates by saying they started it first or that they're playing "PC police", it makes you a bigger douchebag than what you already are.

Preach on, Bob. We need more people like you in the world calling out other people's BS.

P.S: "Gringo" is not a racial slur on par with the N-Word: it just means "white person" while the other is a hateful, disgusting term. That is all.

Though I disagree with some of the specifics of you argument (Resident Evil 5 for example) on the whole it is nice to see someone take the opposite and in my opinion correct view on the subject of political correctness in this day and age.

I really wonder what ever happened to the concept of politeness. Sure disagreeing with people is all well and good, hell it's the only way we make any progress as a species and society, but attacking people in the insulting manner that seems so prevalent today is not only ugly but straight up bad debating. First rule of arguing: the person's ideas are fair game, the person is not. If you can't express your opinion without attacking the person in some way, or shouting for that matter, then you probably don't have a good argument.

The controversy surrounding Resident Evil 5 wasn't about the stereotypical tribal zombies. Most people didn't even know about that untill they played the game. It was about whitebread-American Chris Redfield killing zombies in Africa. And since most people in Africa happen to be black, so too were the zombies.

The stupid tribal zombies were ridicules, but it was the imagined scenario of white vs. black that people went all apeshit over. It just went to show that we hadn't left any of that sordid business of the past behind us. Had it been Chris Redfield killing zombies in Japan nobody would've made a peep.

Good show, though I question why you're attacking Jeff Dunham for this. Sure, he has some racist puppets, but his comedy doesn't really deal with political correctness (at least not that I've seen). If you're calling him out for racist jokes, you also need to call out every comedian you mentioned at the end there.

Carlos Mencia, on the other hand, I can totally understand. You'd be hard pressed to find a joke of his that doesn't attack political correctness.

The only problem I have with political correctness is how its resulted the definition "being equal" gradually changing to "being identical" when that isn't what it means and is factually incorrect. I have no problems with equality between people but stating people are identical when its quantifiable that they are not is retarded. Women should be able to be firefighters but they should take the same test as men, here in Canada they don't and they can pass with results a man would fail with on the physical exam. Yes it means more female firefighters but if a small framed man would fail with those scores why should a woman be allowed to pass with them?

Half of what Bob said was right the other half was frankly pretty stupid.

-People using anti-political correctness as a shield, yeah screw them.

-People going WAY out of their way to avoid being "offensive" can be very annoying. For example, the insistence that the the phrase Arab terrorists is somehow offensive drives me a bit crazy.

No offense Bob you clearly don't have a very good grip on politics, your doing what bad comedians do. Most comedians can't do competent political commentary and confuse preaching an ideology (typically liberal) with wit. Stick to geekdom, you actually have something interesting to say about that.

Finally an episode about social science I could really, but really feel it. I'm a law and history student. I'm also multiethinic, not in the Halle Barry, Barack Obama way. No I mean in the multi with more than one nationality way. PC (not personal computer) is much of a higher issue in US. Mainly 'cos the withe burden in the late XIX century and early XX became guilt.

What you could metion though and that would become another episode is the context that words are used. Negro is offensive, but only in the US in brazillian portuguese that is the correct way to treat african descendent. Wanna know another language that is the right way, italian. Also the word nigger, nigga or whatever some say it, 'cos it took me sometime to see either as a latino or a black or a italian descendt, is offensive. Problem is that lot's and I mean a whole bunch of african american say it and it's only offensive in some cotext (well if you are white, asian, native americam or not black enough u can not use that word, guess it's a perk about being african AMERICAN). ¬¬

If Movie Bob chooses to go back in this topic he really should talk about affirmative actions and the 1960's social moviments. Not only in the US, I know, I know the show is for residents of US in the first place, but this topic is sooo inter connected with the world after WWII and the globalization. Just look Middle East now! Who started those riots huh?

To pose some challenging questions, I guess I'd have to ask why updating Huck Finn is a small deal to you, while something like the Thor change gets the green light. I don't have strong feelings either way, but glancing at these two highlights one of the problems with knowing the difference.

For some people, it's a big deal... for others it's not. And those who feel inconvenienced by what they view as a "small deal" are going to be flustered. To me, the line has to do with reality.

Here's what I mean--let's say you've got a college in New England that is 80% white, 10% black, 5% hispanic, and 5% martian. Whatever. If they take pictures around campus for a catalog, without carefully staging and selecting where/when/who, you're going to probably end up with a selection of pictures that fall along those percents. And if it does skew, mathematically it's just going to skew toward the biggest group.

Now, realistically, the folks designing that catalog should try to ensure the pictures represent the actual diversity of the campus. If there are no pictures of non-white folks, that should be corrected.

Unfortunately, a common attitude is that the catalog should show 25% white, 25% black, 25% hispanic, and 25% martian. If a billboard has 4 people on it, one should be of each race/ethnicity/species. But that isn't representative of reality in that school--or possibly in that STATE. Are we claiming that the state should stop accepting new people (kids included) until those percentages have balanced out?

I agree completely with you on people being jerks, but I disagree that there isn't some heavy-handedness in the application of "political correctness," when it is used to paint the image of a reality that isn't there, and for which there is no reason for it to be there. Would our country be substantially improved if all cultures had equal populations? I don't think so, and it would be impossible to enforce. Instead, our country would be substantially improved if the cultures learned to get along together in their current numbers, and in whatever numbers the future might hold.

When we use so-called "political correctness" to ensure that what we show and say matches up with present reality, that's fine. When we use it to make a Pleasantville version of a false reality, I think we're crossing a line that just doesn't need to be crossed.

I won't pretend I know any of Jeff Dunham's personal opinions. The only one of his sketches I've seen is the dead terrorist, which I thought was pretty funny. I didn't really get any malicious vibes from him. He's making fun of stereotypes, he's making fun of himself, and if you limit a comedian to only non-controversial topics then a lot of fun will be gone from the world.

I've seen other comedians making racist and sexist jokes though, I think it's for the most part obvious when personal opinions strongly colors someone's material. At least I'd like to think it is.

For the most part I do agree with you though. To change the minds of an entire nation, changing the official language is a good start. If, as I'd like to believe most of the people here agree with, we believe all people of both genders and all races are truly equal then showing it in our speech is a good first step towards convincing those who aren't as sure.

Crimson_Dragoon:Good show, though I question why you're attacking Jeff Dunham for this. Sure, he has some racist puppets, but his comedy doesn't really deal with political correctness (at least not that I've seen). If you're calling him out for racist jokes, you also need to call out every comedian you mentioned at the end there.

Carlos Mencia, on the other hand, I can totally understand. You'd be hard pressed to find a joke of his that doesn't attack political correctness.

A lot of those guys, the "racist" humor was far more a satire on racism. They were making a statement about it, one way or the other, when they were "being racist." They were being abrasive to draw attention to the issue, sometimes in a reactionary way.

Jeff Dunham is just cashing in on a "terrorist" stereotype of Middle Eastern people. It's lazy and insensitive comedy... but since his target audience isn't the Middle East, why should he care? It's not that he's being racist. It's how and why.

I agree with some points on this one (especially the Carlos and Jeff mocking).

But I'm not sure I agree with the topic as a whole. I understand that saying someone is just being PC as a defense for saying something hurtful isn't good. But, at the same time, they are just words. What ever happened to 'sticks and stones may break my bones'? Isn't that something we teach children? My thing is, if you're offended by what someone says, WHO CARES? He's probably a dick anyway!

you know, the video was posted here a few days ago about the same topic, but I think it warrants another posting... hang on:

Yes I pretty much quoted him. But tell me that he doesn't make any sense.

Mertruve:Dude, the point of Wikipedia is that everything has an external, credible source.[citation needed]

Fixed.

Not everything is sourced properly.

This. At my college, I'm not allowed to cite anything that comes from Wikipedia, and I know one of my professors will actively go into a Wikipedia page and purposefully give false info to throw students off.

Children, search out anything concerning the comedian Stewart Lee and political correctness on youtube to find an expansion on this point- especially the episode on it from his 'Comedy Vehicle' series. Good show as normal MovieBob, I agree completely with everything you say, I find that that is best!!! LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOOLOLOLLOLOLOLOLOOLOLOL

bob i have a frined who cant hear me rofren to an african amrice poresn in a book/movie black (onlie if i forget the name of the guy)every time i say black she corrcts me "afrocin amrican" is saying black offnse?am i a buiget?also wille i was talk about my clip i was meaiking i muntend the colar black and ges what was her autmtic respons she corrcted me!?

sorry about all the spling mestakes im dislecktek and englis is my second lngug

btw i neverd used the "n" word and i do have black findrs and i say black becus in israel theres not allot of africen amrican theres black africanse vrey brown yamen jews and arbds not alot ofafricane amreican

btww love the show also g.o.t. and ecsepe to movies you got me to whatc 7 sumuri it was AWESOME an amising loved it thank you for the refrins to whats now one of my fovrit movies

I disagree with almost 100%. I also think you should leave politics of this sort out of your videos.

The problem here is that your disapproval of the "politically correct" arguement is largely that your on the opposite side of the spectrum that uses it, and as such don't like the way it portrays your own personal political biases. Your basically being just as bad, if not worse, as the people you are making a critique of.

Let me get down to one of the biggest parts of why your point of view is a problem. You are portraying bigotry as always being bad. The thing is that nothing can be changed when there is a problem, unless people acknowlege that it exists. Take American black culture for example which is very much anti-societal assimilation, and anti-intellectual at the very least. You make judgements about it, and of course your a bigot, someone who defends this as being okay or "just the way it is" is being politically incorrect. I look at guys like Bill Cosby (who has a PHD in Children's Education) and how he goes on about Black america's attitude of entitlement, and not taking advantage of the oppertunities that have been provided for it. When you have entire major racial subcultures that see education and getting a regular rut-like job as "selling out" you have an issue, and one that needs to be addressed. Of course you start singling out these aspects of black society, defining them, and trying to take action, and your being a bigot. The problem is being a bigot does not mean that you are always wrong. Bill Cosby only gets away with it as much as he has (and he's been criticized heavily for it none the less) because he's Black and the same culture can't go after him politically the way they could a guy from another race who brings up uncomfortable issues.

A better example would be recent situations with immigrants in places like Texas and California. Please not I am not talking about ILLEGAL immigrants which is another issue, but rather people who have become US citizens. We have problems to the point where we have schools banning kids from wearing the American flag, or putting it on a vehicle like a bike that they bring to school, due to fear of violence and retaliation from immigrants, especially during holidays like Cinca De Mayo (I've posted links all over The Escapist, there have been multiple incidents, not one isolated case). Basically a situation where these people have become Americans, but really just want the benefits and otherwise to be Mexicans (or in cases of other incidents around the country, whatever land they came from), these are people getting violent and making threats over the symbol of what is functionally their own country. Yes it is bigoted to single out immigrants for things like this and point out that something needs to be done, and preacing tolerance of such behavior IS political correctness.

Another big issue is things like property rights. In the USA we have tons of laws in place that are used to prevent white people (the majority) from refusing to sell property to minorities, and "whitewash" certain areas so to speak (not that it's anything like the problem it was decades ago when these laws were created). On the other hand we have issue with various minorities like Chinese, Jews, Cubans, and others who refuse to sell property outside of their ethnic group when put on the market. For all intents and purpose your dealing with a major problem of laws with a dual standard, yet there are people who defend this based on the fact that it's minorities and it would be bigoted to single these problems out to be addressed. The very fact that we have "districts" in cities like "China Town", "Little Havana", and similar things represent the problem. A building in Chinatown goes up on the market, and some white guy/company gives the best offer, and they decide to go with a lesser offer because the guys making it are Chinese, that's an issue. Ditto for situations when it's minorities who won't rent apartments or lease space to people who aren't of the appropriate ethnicity.

Finally, I think it's going waaaay off the deepend when it's being argued that taking long-established characters and changing their ethnicity to make it "more diverse" isn't political correctness. That's politically correct boneheadedness at it's absolute worst.

My long standing arguement is that due to the way society has been for a long time there aren't a whole lot of minority characters in things like comics. Of course then again by being "minorities" you don't expect there to be a lot of them in proportion to whites in the US because there are simply a lot more white guys. The problem as it exists is something to be addressed by minorities getting into things like writing and drawing comic books. It's a very competitive business of course, and this entails you having to see genuine interest within minority groups to see it done with hundreds of people dedicating their lives to it and failing for every one that actually succeeds. You need to see a quality product by the same standards, not someone handing off a contract to a black creator beause he's black. Also like anything else they have to deal with appealing to the market as a whole, a black character with a "'tude" that villifies the white majority (even if just through dialogue) like the world is still stuck in the 1930s is of course not going to work for large scale release for example.

To put things into perspective Asians broke into comics in a big way, this happened because of a lot of interest, and massive amounts of persistance. Right now you see both Manga and Western comics in a sort of symbotic relationship and inspiring each other heavily, and a rising number of asian themed super heroes in general. Heck, we've even got The Japanese doing a version of Western super heroes like "The X-men".

The problem is that while it's bigoted, a lot of the minorities that usually get involved in politically correct arguements, are demanding to see instant success and representation in things, without having to put in any real work or effort over the long term. The "get rich or die trying" attitude so to speak.

I'll say flat out bigotry is what society needs more of right now, people who are willing to flat out ignore political correctness and what's nice, focus on problems like a laser, and work to correct them even if it involves being mean. Honestly I think political correctness perpetuates problems and actually does more damage to the people it sets out to protect than it helps them... largely because it tells them that things that aren't okay are just fine.

Oh and Bob (to address you directly again, if you even read the stuff I write) for the record, those of us who take the other side of these arguements are not generally speaking cowards hiding behind the term "politically incorrect". I'm quite up front about what I think even when I use the term, and I generally deal with the crap I get for it. I might be "mean" but I believe it's for the greater good, not out of some sense of superiority, or the sake of meaness for the sake of meaness. To be entirely honest my "problem" is that I think a lot of the groups that I criticize can do a lot better, they can meet the same standards set by the majority, humans are humans. People who think that these groups need to be protected ultimatly have attitudes that come down to those people somehow being unable to do better, which is why the protection is nessicary. On most levels that's actually far more bigoted than I am, and an even worse kind of sugar-coated racism than what the politically correct hope to decry.

Also as far as "Resident Evil 5" goes, the game was fairly accurate, and I see no real reason why a third world hellhole shouldn't be portrayed as a third world hellhole simply to be nice. If people don't like how that imagery is, then strive to change it. It also comes down to the counter-issue of "why is everything set in the USA". Set a game in the third world trying to protect helpless people from bio-terrorism, and oops all of a sudden it's racist because those people are portrayed as victims who need the help.

Also, I for one can't see why the holy heck Sheeva walking around in sexed up tribal garb or a "Jill Of The Jungle" outfit is supposed to be racist or polically incorrect. It's no differant than white guys dressing up like sexed up vikings or Romans (TOGA PARTY!!!). Granted it's impractical for the setting, but that's the way a lot of alternate costumes are (which is why they are alternate costumes), we have games where the protaganist can do things like run around dressed in a chicken suit in an otherwise fairly serious game as an "unlockable". My attitude about "Resident Evi 5" is that it was just the PC crowd trying to grab a headline, and that's not likely to change. The *only* thing that made it differant from what legions of other games has done is the setting. Set the game in eastern Europe and give the female character a sexy jester costume, or a dominatrix outfit and nobody is going to bat an eye.

I can agree to this video in the aspect of PC in the US, but in Europe, it's another story. In Europe, it is nearly illegal to criticize Islam because it is "wrong" to do so. Don't believe me? look up the story of the Geert Wilders trial. That man is on trial for quoting dangerous passages from the Quran and saying that they are in fact dangerous when read by fundamentalists, and for that he stands before trial.

All I'm saying with this is that in the US there might not be any real grounds for being an "anti Political Correctness hero", but there is one in Europe. It is sad, but true. This might not be the same "political correctness" as the original, like not using overly offensive and racist words, but the fact is: PC is a method of self censor very often based on how offended the discriminated party claims they are. This has become a very problematic thing in modern society, because it has become a way of censoring opinions as well.

If a group claims to be offended by an opinion, it can severely damage the opportunity for an open and honest debate in that field. This has happened in large scale around religion, and especially around Islam in Europe. A good and healthy debate has been held back several years because they claimed to be offended by opinions. As societies, we need to stop allowing people to take the word by claiming offense. Changes, be they good or bad, will ALWAYS offend someone, and this is why political correctness is more of a disease than a blessing. As was said in the video: "it's just good manners", but I think people have forgotten this and turned it into something else.

And then you have the PC fanatics, people who try to purge the world of any words with implications. Like tkioz posted: people try to remove the labeling of computer components to stop having the tags "master" and "slave". This is a very large factor helping all the bigots in the world use the "that's just PC" defense and get away with it. Political Correctness starts to only hurt its own cause when things like these happen. Of course, there will always be idiots, but there's something wrong when said idiots can actually make cases out of things like these.

I will admit, 90-95% of all "that's just PC" comments are made by bigots, but it doesn't remove the fact that PC as it is today, is not that good a thing.

tkioz:What's wrong with Chairman? Why do we need to change it to the clunky unnatural sounding Chairperson for example? Yeah I get the actual chair might be a woman, but woman and women have man and men in them, so big bloody deal. Let it be a language hold over like calling a judge "your honour"

It's about default imagery. By using the word 'chairman', we reinforce the notion that such a person is more likely to be male than female. How would you feel if you were a male cleaner and you were always referred to as a 'charlady'? Words like 'actress' have a similar problem: they distinguish the female role as an exception (how can we tell? because a mixed group of male and female performers are 'actors')

I read an interesting parody set in an alternate universe where 'white' was used in the same way, so the word for the head of a company was the 'chairwhite', and the world of comedy was divided into 'comedians' such as Robin Williams and Tina Fey, and 'comedioons' such as Richard Pryor and Whoopi Goldberg. Still think it's a non-issue?

This is an interesting one because there's an implicit racism in the idea that Master and Slave are racially loaded terms - obviously there's no reason why slavery has to be white-on-black. However, in the context of US politics I can see why it could offend some people and I can't see any reason why we shouldn't question word usage and seek alternatives where possible. If there's a less offensive pair of words we could use (shepherd/sheep?), why not?

Mertruve:Dude, the point of Wikipedia is that everything has an external, credible source.[citation needed]

Fixed.

Not everything is sourced properly.

Yep. Some times it is down right bad. Wikipedia is amazing in some ways and falls short in others. It is a great place to do a first look to get an idea on where to focus more serious research efforts. It is not a good plan to just rely on it.

One of the only times ive not walked away from the Big Picture feeling validated, which is probably were 90% of the following rant comes from but still-"politically incorrect" and "being a jerk" are very hard to separate and its a complete value judgement. "being nice" is a laudible aim but how far do you take it? (and yes this needs to be answered, most people dont have the common sense others do).For example the controversial behaviour of Gervais at the Golden Globes- alot of people fall in to both camps of the debate, so straight out calling all those who speak their mind or make a joke that cuts too near the knuckle "jerks" is just as bad as the collective of people MovieBob just railed against.Ultimately its a pointless issue, and commenting on it just serves to pour petrol on it.

hurricanejbb:One of your best, Bob. I'm all for free speech, but if someone is going to be a jerk and offend just for the sake of being offensive, then they have no justification to defend themselves and deserve to be called out on their douchebaggery.

They may be a douche but being an asshole does not take away your free speech.

tkioz:Well I agree some of what he has to say this week, but not all of it. There is a undercurrent of political correctness that annoys the living shit out of me.

What's wrong with Chairman? Why do we need to change it to the clunky unnatural sounding Chairperson for example? Yeah I get the actual chair might be a woman, but woman and women have man and men in them, so big bloody deal. Let it be a language hold over like calling a judge "your honour"

Oh another that really irks me, if the flight attendant thing, there were already perfectly acceptable English words for those jobs, Steward and Stewardess, what the hell was wrong with them? And while I'm on the subject of jobs, you're not an auto repair technician, you're a mechanic, there are perfectly good words that people refuse to use for stupid reasons.

It's one thing, for example, to change a phrase from something like "retarded" to "developmentally challenged" (though to be fair they mean pretty much the same thing, one just has a long history of use as an insult as well), but come-on there is a thing as going too far; just look at that LA ordnance that wanted to change how hard drive jumpers were labelled, it took an issue with "master" and "slave". ( http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/outrage/master.asp )

Going to agree with you. There's a lot of "politically corrected" titles that were really just changed to make them sound more important. What's that phrase? "Never underestimate the power of carefully worded nonsense." In short, "bullshit."

The reality of it is it shouldn't fucking matter. I have no time to waste on people that may be offended by the things I say. If they didn't like it, no one forced them to listen. I should also mention that the offensive things I say are 99% always jokes. I like off-color flat-out wrong humor.

I disagree with your point that people who bash PC are jerks. I for one hate PC because the only examples I see are people walking on eggshells because something they say or do MAY offend someone (Isn't that what PC is; Being as inoffensive to as many people as possible?). Like changing "Baa Baa Black Sheep" to "Baa Baa Rainbow Sheep" just because of a perceived racial connection. And what about when PC itself becomes insulting? My black friend gets called an African-American because of his skin color but he gets ticked at that because he views himself as an American, period.

Oh, well. Maybe it's because I'm a Caucasian male, so my opinions don't seem to matter to PC people. You want proof of that, just go look at the ethnicity options on a job application. They're Hispanic, Asian, African-American, Native American, White, or Other. Seems to me that some PC people would have called that out by now.

samus17:Not bad, but I don't remember the resident evil 5 racism scandal being quite like how you portray it. I'm pretty sure the complaints were "whitey killing blacks" and not "misuse of tribal imagery" But hey, I could be wrong.

I'm not crucifying anyone (yet), but I do remember the RE5 scandal and it involved the scene where the blonde white chick at the beginning, where she had her hair pulled by a zombie and then she was transformed into a zombie herself.

I don't remember the "outrage" of the tribal misuse, heck, even I didn't think it was racist, it was pretty good in the context of the story, of a powerful tribal village being slowly corrupted by a huge corporation, I even consider the tribal parts my favorite of the entire game, as they are much, much challenging and varied than the regular villagers at the beginning.

I think Bob just made that part, but I understand where he was getting at, even if it was a little rant he just made up all by himself.

Way too much self-righteous rants, not nearly enough information and context (especially regarding relevance to escapism). You could also try to show both sides (even if only to show how the other side is wrong) rather than just name-calling and hyperbole. Paints with a huuuuge brush, and also seems to suggest all instances of insensitivity are equally damning, which I don't think is fair.

I don't know, while I rely on Moviebob's film reviews regularly, I'm not taking much from any of his "The Big Picture" videos. Most of the time you could sum it up in a single sentence and spare me the self-indulgent tangential stuff. My favorite part was actually in the beginning, when he described political correctness as a kind of anti-concept, a phrase whose usage really just includes 'being nice.' It's because it was informative and interesting. While I'm sure the rest of the video was fun for those equally self-righteous and seeking validation, for me it was a boring waste of time. And a bit like watching a crazy person yell at random people on the street, because he worked himself up so much he was absolutely frothing at the mouth. But he gave basically no justification for this whatsoever.

EDIT: And I can't believe he would go so far as to obfuscate the difference between not supporting any one instance of political correctness and the use of offensive racial stereotypes and even sexual harassment! I'm sorry, but there is no excuse for this. It's just too dishonest to ignore and it's been bugging me for hours. He may as well have just said, "If you don't believe the male sex drive is responsible for 9/11, you're a white supremacist." I mean, why not?